Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Trust rule 102

I’m no legal expert but I have followed the debate over whether the trust board have acted within their powers, or otherwise, with interest with regard to rule 102.

What does cross my mind is the further trust rule -

“The following decisions must be made by Legacy Member resolution:
49.2.1 any decision to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of Adams Park”

Assuming that the form of charge gives the power to sell or dispose of Adams Park in the event of default then I am not sure how this sits with rule 49.2.1?

Would the fact that the board have taken this decision unilaterally make it ultra vires and therefore void?

Comments

  • Yes.legal has been taken independently of the trust board by concerned directors that supports your premise. It will also be the basis of a no confidence vote .

    There are some very serious issues under companies law and directors obligations under law that will be asked of every trust director. Saying I was bullied or my voice was not loud enough is not a defence as a director, by law.

    It’s very worrying.

    👍 👎 ( 1 )
  • The WWT board appear to be of the opinion that 102 can be argued in a court of law as now applying to loans taken out by WWFC (not an opinion shared by me I hasten to add).

    That may become academic if members of WWT decide that the actions were carried out ultra vires, against the spirit of the of safeguarding WWFC's most prized assets, and, ultimately, if enough WWT members deem the actions take to not have been in the best interests of WWFC.

  • It's also firmly in the realm of speculation.> @marlowchair said:

    Yes.legal has been taken independently of the trust board by concerned directors that supports your premise. It will also be the basis of a no confidence vote .

    There are some very serious issues under companies law and directors obligations under law that will be asked of every trust director. Saying I was bullied or my voice was not loud enough is not a defence as a director, by law.

    It’s very worrying.

    It's also firmly in the realm of speculation.

  • Is it really speculation though @HCblue, as @marlowchair clearly has/had a place within the machinations of the trust and I can't help think that this is not, as speculated, a personal vendetta campaign?

  • I don't doubt he finds it very worrying, @EwanHoosaami - his position is well-known. But that aside, all his post does is say that Trust directors have weighty legal responsibilities (which is no secret), speculate on the possibility that they may be in breach of those obligations and insinuate both that some directors may have felt bullied into the current position and that those responsible have broken the law.

    I just read a post on FB about AH, commenting unfavourably on him based on an extremely ignorant reading of his Companies House information. The information is correct: the poster's interpretation of it is not. It has led him to poison the minds of his readers unfairly, and extremely unhelpfully. True or not, whether written from a position of knowledge or not, I place this post in the same category and will reserve judgement until more is clearly known, resisting the temptation to think myself expert in matters of company law.

  • That’s of course your prerogative HCBlue. When weighing up whether what you consider to be speculation by me, perhaps consider all the times I’ve been wrong in what I have posted here about concerns and happenings at the club.

  • @marlowchair said:
    That’s of course your prerogative HCBlue. When weighing up whether what you consider to be speculation by me, perhaps consider all the times I’ve been wrong in what I have posted here about concerns and happenings at the club.

    Whether what you write about the factual position if correct or not is irrelevant to my point. It is the dark, pessimistic construction that I find unhelpful and, to the extent that it predicts weighty and negative outcomes, speculative.

  • Regardless of who is right or wrong about the legal/moral aspects of actions taken by the Trust Board, it would be refreshing if other participants in the debate were as articulate and careful in their posts as @HCblue.

    👍 👎 ( 1 )
  • @HCblue said:

    @marlowchair said:
    That’s of course your prerogative HCBlue. When weighing up whether what you consider to be speculation by me, perhaps consider all the times I’ve been wrong in what I have posted here about concerns and happenings at the club.

    Whether what you write about the factual position if correct or not is irrelevant to my point. It is the dark, pessimistic construction that I find unhelpful and, to the extent that it predicts weighty and negative outcomes, speculative.

    Well the dark and pessimistic construction that has been consistent for a year or more has proven to be warranted , despite it being similarly criticised and dismissed at the time as you are now.

  • @micra said:
    Regardless of who is right or wrong about the legal/moral aspects of actions taken by the Trust Board, it would be refreshing if other participants in the debate were as articulate and careful in their posts as @HCblue.

    I agree with this btw

  • @marlowchair said:

    @HCblue said:

    @marlowchair said:
    That’s of course your prerogative HCBlue. When weighing up whether what you consider to be speculation by me, perhaps consider all the times I’ve been wrong in what I have posted here about concerns and happenings at the club.

    Whether what you write about the factual position if correct or not is irrelevant to my point. It is the dark, pessimistic construction that I find unhelpful and, to the extent that it predicts weighty and negative outcomes, speculative.

    Well the dark and pessimistic construction that has been consistent for a year or more has proven to be warranted , despite it being similarly criticised and dismissed at the time as you are now.

    Up to a point, perhaps so. There's invariably a lot that comes out in the wash in matters like these, given the number of moving parts and interested parties involved. I welcome the sharing of relevant, objective information. Negative, critical or pessimistic constructions or inferences arising from same, that are less firmly founded in fact, are much less helpful and tend only to muddy the waters and raise the temperature in a way that is unhelpful to clear-minded analysis. I find myself to be a linear thinker and prefer to have facts put forward without comment or judgement, and in an open rather than cryptic fashion, so I can make my own appraisal of their worth. When they are not, I feel much less able to lend too much weight to them.

  • As I said , up to you . You won’t anything from
    Me here that has been wrong over the years.

  • I'm pretty sure you've said plenty of things that are wrong. It would be weird not to have done.

  • @marlowchair two liner, first line, above.

  • Today I accept, but what about tomorrow?

  • Will you still love me?

  • Oh I-I-I will always love you-oo-oo.

    Do be careful if you have a bath tonight, dear....

Sign In or Register to comment.